On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 01:06:09PM +0200, Daniel Zetterman wrote: > Sorry guys, the offset is if course as stated near=2, far=1 > > Isn't near=2, far=2 better for raid10? > a number of people say that near=1, far=2 is better. you could try it out and see if there is any difference. best regards keld > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Daniel Zetterman > <daniel.zetterman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I'm using near=2, far=1, superblock version=00.90.03 > > > > I'm not sure about offset, but its the default. > > > > I wan't to clearify one thing about the data, its not only a problem > > with encryption over raid, you get the same drop without encryption... > > but you can remedy it by setting up the readahead, which gives no > > effect when using encryption. > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 4:23 AM, Keld Jørn Simonsen <keld@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 01:19:50AM +0200, Daniel Zetterman wrote: > >>> I've done some more tests and here are the results: > >>> > >>> # bonnie++ during resync with readahead set to 512 (encrypted raid10) > >>> kpax,4G,,,77308,21,34585,17,,,82073,33,384.8,1,,,,,,,,,,,,, > >> > >> It would be nice to know which layout (near,far,offset) > >> that you are using for the test. The expected results are quite > >> dependent on this. > >> > >> best regards > >> keld > >> > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
